ÿWPC) …#†VUNÜ %* 0(04Xl 0l{ 0Dç 0J+ 0Tu 0^É 0h' 0r 0| 0†} 0 1u“ U, 0d4 U,˜ U>Ä B)DC+ AMnU*»åñúñtëv~_vÓÝ D3° Bã 0@ AO@Æ 0DU 0D™ D/Ý B ˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÎÙP ïE*— J¯ ^P(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡˜€* @3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òJanuary€16,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó çÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€suggests€that€a€settlement€was€reached€between€Mullins€and€the€driver€of€theÏautomobile.Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€other€distributors€are€Helmet€House€in€West€Village,€California€and€Castle€Sales€inÏGreenbay,€Wisconsin.Ì jÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€court€nonetheless€unanimously€agreed€that€the€forum€State's€exercise€of€personalÏjurisdiction€over€òòò òAsahióóó ó€under€the€circumstances€presented€would€be€"unreasonable€and€unfair."€Ïòòò òAsahi,óóó ó€480€U.S.€at€115„16.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò++++'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÓ` Ü` p”XÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE,€WESTERN€SECTIONÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ à_______________________________________________________Ìó óà à)ò òÌDIANE€MULLINS,€Surviving€Spouseó óà à)à àShelby€County€Circuit€CourtÌò òand€Personal€Representative€of€theó óà à)à àNo.€40652€T.D.Ìò òEstate€of€Michael€David€Mullinsó ó,à à)Ìò òDeceased,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Plaintiff/Appellee,à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)à àC.A.€No.€02A01„9410„CV„00229Ìà à)ÌÙ€€Ùò òßL€!# ;+'h|¯¼` Å `€€LßHARLEY„DAVIDSON€YAMAHAó óà à)Ìò òBMW€OF€MEMPHIS,€INC.,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Cross„Plaintiff/Appellee,à à)Ìà à)ÌVS.à à)Ìà à)Ìò òHONG€JIN€CROWN€CORPORATION,ó óà à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Cross„Defendant/Appellant,à à)Ìà à)Ìò òANDó óà à)Ìà à)Ìò òSULLIVAN€BROTHERS€ó óà à)ò òÌDISTRIBUTORSó ó,à à)Ìà à)Ì€€€€€Defendant/Cross„Defendant/Appellee.à à)Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌFrom€the€Circuit€Court€of€Shelby€County€at€Memphis.Ìò òHonorable€Robert€L.€Childers,€Judge€ó óÌÌò òJ.€Cecil€McWhirteró ó,Ìò òPaul€M.€O'Brienó ó,ÌMCWHIRTER€&€WYATT,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Cross„Defendant/Appellant,€Hong€Jin€Crown€Corporation.ÌÌò òFred€M.€Ridolphi,€Jr.ó ó,ÌHUMPHREYS€DUNLAP€WELLFORD€ACUFF€&€STANTON,€P.C.,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/Appellee,€Diane€Mullins.ÌÌò òJerry€E.€Mitchelló ó,Ìò òRebecca€Adelmanó ó,ÌTHOMASON,€HENDRIX,€HARVEY,€JOHNSON€&€MITCHELL,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€Defendant/Cross„Plaintiff/Appellee,€Harley„Davidson€Yamaha€BMW€of€Memphis,ÏInc.ÌÌò òRobert€L.€J.€Spence,€Jr.ó ó,ÌTHE€HARDISON€LAW€FIRM,€Memphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendant/Cross„Defendant/Appellee,€Sullivan€Brothers€Distributors.ÌÌOPINION€FILED:ÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌò òÌà àFARMER,€J.ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€ó ó:€(Concurs)Ìò òHIGHERS,€J.€ó ó:€(Concurs)ÌÓ  ÓÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àThis€is€an€interlocutory€appeal€by€Appellant,€Hong€Jin€Crown€Corporation€(HJC),Ïfrom€the€trial€court's€denial€of€its€motions€to€dismiss,€as€to€Appellee,€Harley„Davidson€YamahaÏBMW€of€Memphis,€Inc.€(Harley„Davidson),€on€the€grounds€of€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction€andÏthe€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€as€to€Appellee,€Diane€Mullins€(Mullins),€on€theÏadditional€ground€of€insufficiency€of€process€and€service€of€process.ÌÌà àThis€matter€stems€from€a€vehicular€accident€in€Memphis€on€September€4,€1990,Ïresulting€in€the€death€of€Mullins'€husband.€€Mullins€filed€suit€as€the€surviving€spouse€and€personalÏrepresentative€of€the€estate,€on€August€20,€1991,€against€HJC,€Harley„Davidson€and€SullivanÏBrothers€Distributors€(Sullivan€Brothers).€€Mullins€alleged€that€the€accident€occurred€when€anÏautomobile€improperly€and€unlawfully€turned€into€the€path€of€a€motorcycle€driven€by€theÏdeceased.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€It€was€further€alleged€that€at€the€time€of€the€incident,€the€deceased€was€wearing€aÏdefectively€designed€and€manufactured€motorcycle€helmet€which€caused€or€allowed€his€death.€ÏHarley„Davidson€filed€cross€claims€against€both€Sullivan€Brothers€and€HJC€for€indemnity€andÏcontribution€in€the€event€it€was€found€liable€to€Mullins.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€summarized€the€underlying€facts€of€this€case,€in€its€order€grantingÏHJC's€interlocutory€appeal,€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[HJC]€manufacturers€[sic]€motorcycle€helmets€in€the€Republic€ofÏKorea.€€[HJC]€sold€the€motorcycle€helmet€in€question€to€[SullivanÏBrothers],€one€of€its€three€United€States€distributors€of€motorcycleÍhelmets,€which€is€located€in€the€State€of€Massachusetts.× ƒ% ××  ×€€[HJC]Ïshipped€the€helmet€in€question€from€its€plant€in€Korea€to€[SullivanÏBrothers]€in€Massachusetts.€€[Sullivan€Brothers]€then€sold€theÏmotorcycle€helmet€to€[Harley„Davidson],€a€retailer€in€the€State€ofÏTennessee,€and€Sullivan€Brothers€shipped€the€said€motorcycleÏhelmet€to€the€said€retailer€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€[Mullins]Ïsubsequently€purchased€the€motorcycle€[helmet]€from€the€retailer€inÏthe€State€of€Tennessee.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€affidavit€of€Scott€S.€Hong,€the€vice€president€of€HJC,€further€reveals:€€HJCÏmanufactures€motorcycle€helmets€in€its€factory€in€South€Korea;€it€maintains€no€offices€or€places€ofÏbusiness€in€the€United€States.€€HJC€sells€its€motorcycle€helmets€directly€to€the€aforementionedÏdistributors.€€Each€distributor€is€"free€to€sell€to€any€dealer€of€their€choosing€anywhere€in€the€UnitedÏStates."€€HJC€does€not€sell€directly€to€dealers€and€does€not€suggest€names€of€dealers€to€any€of€itsÏdistributors.€€HJC€does€not€sell€motorcycle€helmets€or€any€other€products€directly€into€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€€HJC€transacts€no€business€within€the€state;€it€maintains€no€offices€or€agents€and€ownsÏno€property€within€the€state.€€HJC€did€not€create€or€control€the€distribution€system€which€broughtÏany€of€its€products€into€the€state.€€HJC€does€not€advertise€or€participate€in€the€costs€of€advertisingÏany€of€its€products€and€does€not€solicit€business€in€the€state.€€Finally,€HJC€does€not€participate€inÏthe€promotion,€or€pay€any€incentives€for€the€promotion,€of€its€products€in€Tennessee.ÌÌà àHong's€deposition€indicates:€€HJC€began€distributing€motorcycle€helmets€in€theÏUnited€States€in€1986.€€Hong€is€an€officer€and€director€of€both€HJC€and€HJC€America.€€HJCÏAmerica€is€a€California€corporation€involved€with€"[s]ales,€marketing,€exhibition€shows€andÏconducting€studies€in€terms€of€color€preferences,€.€.€.€with€respect€to€new€motorcycle€accessories,€.Ï.€.€anything€that€would€be€deemed€helpful€towards€the€sales€efforts."€€HJC€America€has€contactÏwith€the€three€American€distributors.€€The€FG„2€helmet,€the€model€in€question,€was€firstÏmanufactured€in€September€1989€and€HJC€possessed€written€documentation€that€it€complied€withÏU.S.€standards€and€regulations.€€Department€of€Transportation€"D.O.T."€standards€orÍspecifications€do€not€exist€in€Korea.€€The€shell€size€or€configuration€of€HJC€helmets€is€different€forÏAmerican€as€opposed€to€Asian€heads.€€€The€helmet€was€distributed€in€the€United€States€with€theÏletters€"D.O.T."€affixed€thereon.€€HJC€participates€in€approximately€10€trade€shows€world€wideÏeach€year.€€Hong€does€not€know€where€HJC€helmets€are€currently€sold€in€the€United€States.€€HJCÏwas€never€aware€to€whom€its€helmets€were€ultimately€sold€or€to€whom€they€were€sent€to€in€theÏUnited€States,€"nor€could€[they]€get€involved€in€that€aspect."€€HJC€never€instructed€its€distributorsÏto€forego€sales€in€Tennessee€or€any€other€specified€locale.€€In€reference€to€HJC's€anticipation€ofÏnationwide€sales,€Hong€stated,€"[w]e€did€not€know€America€at€all,€so€we€just€simply€figured€thatÏthe€end€buyers€were€all€up€to€the€distributors€seeking€them€out."ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€deposition€of€Robert€Sullivan,€Sullivan€Brothers'€market€coversÏthe€entire€United€States.€€The€record€indicates€that€between€1989€to€1992,€HJC€shipped€543,897Ïmotorcycle€helmets,€of€its€total€production€of€931,106,€to€the€United€States.€€ÌÌà àHJC€frames€the€issues€on€appeal€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à1.€€Whether€[HJC's]€constitutional€rights€were€violatedÏunder€the€14th€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€whenÏthe€trial€court€denied€[HJC's]€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€inÏpersonam€jurisdiction€where€[HJC],€a€foreign€corporation,€has€noÏcontacts€with€the€forum;€has€not€availed€itself€of€the€privilege€ofÏconducting€activities€within€the€forum;€and€[HJC's]€conduct€is€suchÏthat€it€could€not€anticipate€being€hauled€into€Tennessee€Courts.ÌÌà8 àà à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€[HJC's]€motionÏto€dismiss€the€original€complaint€for€insufficiency€of€process€andÏinsufficiency€of€service€of€process€where€the€plaintiff€failed€to€returnÏservice€of€process€within€thirty€days€and€where€the€plaintiff€failed€toÏapply€for€and€obtain€issuance€of€new€process€within€six€months€orÏrecommence€the€action€within€one€year.ÌÌà8 àà à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€dismissing€the€originalÏcomplaint€as€being€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€where€theÏplaintiff€failed€to€obtain€new€process€within€six€months€orÏrecommence€the€lawsuit€no€later€than€one€year€from€issuance€of€theÏprocess€which€was€not€served€or€returned€thirty€days€from€issuance.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€issue€which€we€find€dispositive€in€this€case€is€whether€the€trial€court's€exerciseÏof€òòò òin€personamóóó ó€jurisdiction€over€HJC,€a€foreign€corporation,€comports€with€the€due€processÏclause€of€the€14th€Amendment.ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àIn€determining€whether€or€not€a€state€can€assert€long„armÏjurisdiction,€due€process€requires€that€a€non„resident€defendant€beÏsubjected€to€a€judgment€òòò òin€personamóóó ó€only€if€he€has€minimumÏcontacts€with€the€forum€such€that€"the€maintenance€of€the€suit€doesÏnot€offend€'traditional€notions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice.;'€"€Ïòòò òInternational€Shoe€Co.€v.€Washingtonóóó ó,€326€U.S.€310,€316,Ï66€S.Ct.€154,€158,€90€L.Ed.€95€(1945).€.€.€.€the€absence€of€physicalÏcontacts€will€not€defeat€òòò òin€personamóóó ó€jurisdiction€where€aÏcommercial€actor€purposefully€directs€his€activities€toward€citizensÏof€the€forum€State€and€litigation€results€from€injuries€arising€out€ofÏor€relating€to€those€activities.€€òòò òBurger€King€Corp.€v.ÏRudzewiczóóó ó,€[471]€U.S.€[462],€105€S.Ct.€2174,€2182,€85€L.Ed.2dÏ528€(1985).€€In€such€a€case,€"the€defendant's€conduct€andÏconnection€with€the€forum€State€are€such€that€he€should€reasonablyÏanticipate€being€haled€into€court€there."€€òòò òWorld„WideÏVolkswagen€Corp.€v.€Woodsonóóó ó,€444€U.S.€286,€297,€100ÏS.Ct.€559,€567,€62€L.Ed.2d€490€(1980).ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òMasada€Inv.€Corp.€v.€Allenóóó ó,€697€S.W.2d€332,€334€(Tenn.€1985).ÌÌà àThe€"minimum€contacts"€test,€as€it€is€commonly€referred,€first€requires€the€court€toÏidentify€the€contacts€between€the€non„resident€and€the€forum.€The€court€must€then€determineÏwhether€exercising€personal€jurisdiction€based€on€these€contacts€is€consistent€with€traditionalÏnotions€of€fair€play€and€substantial€justice.€€òòò òDavis€Kidd€Booksellers,€Inc.€v.€Day„Impex,ÏLtd.óóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€572,€575€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó€held€that€both€steps€entail€"aÏcareful,€not€mechanical,€analysis€of€the€facts€of€each€case€with€particular€focus€on€the€defendant,Ïthe€forum,€and€the€nature€of€the€litigation."€€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€at€575.€€Determination€ofÏthe€second€half€of€the€analysis€should€include€consideration€of€"the€burden€on€the€defendant,€theÏinterests€of€the€forum€state,€the€plaintiff's€interest€in€obtaining€relief,€the€judicial€system's€interestÏin€obtaining€the€most€efficient€resolution€of€controversies,€and€the€state's€shared€interest€inÏfurthering€fundamental,€substantive€social€policies."€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àHJC€primarily€relies€upon€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó€and€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏdecision€of€òòò òAsahi€Metal€Indus.€Co.€v.€Superior€Court,€óóó ó480€U.S.€102€(1987),€to€argue€itsÏposition.€€òòò òAsahi€Metalóóó ó€involved€a€cross„claim€for€indemnification€(the€main€suit€having€beenÏsettled)€against€a€Japanese€manufacturer€of€tire€valve€assemblies€(Asahi)€by€a€Taiwanese€tire€tubeÏmanufacturer€who€incorporated€the€assemblies€when€manufacturing€a€tire€alleged€defective€by€theÏoriginal€plaintiff€after€a€motorcycle€accident€in€California.€€òòò òAsahióóó ó,€480€U.S.€at€106.€€TheÏTaiwanese€manufacturer€sold€its€finished€product€throughout€the€world€including€the€UnitedÏStates,€with€20%€of€its€sales€occurring€in€California.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€Affidavits€submitted€by€the€respectiveÏparties€indicated€that€òòò òAsahióóó ó€was€aware€that€the€tires€incorporating€its€assemblies€would€end€up€inÏthe€United€States€and€California,€€but€that€Asahi€never€contemplated€that€its€sales,€in€Taiwan,€to€theÏmanufacturer€would€subject€it€to€lawsuits€in€California.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€107.€€ÌÌà àThe€stated€issue€in€òòò òAsahióóó ó€was€"whether€the€mere€awareness€on€the€part€of€a€foreignÏdefendant€that€the€components€it€manufactured,€sold,€and€delivered€outside€the€United€StatesÏwould€reach€the€forum€State€in€the€stream€of€commerce€constitutes€'minimum€contacts'€betweenÏthe€defendant€and€the€forum€State€.€.€.€."€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€105.€€Four€justices€concluded:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€placement€of€a€product€into€the€stream€of€commerce,€withoutÏmore,€is€not€an€act€of€the€defendant€purposefully€directed€toward€theÏforum€State.€€Additional€conduct€of€the€defendant€may€indicate€anÏintent€or€purpose€to€serve€the€market€in€the€forum€State,€forÏexample,€designing€the€product€for€the€market€in€the€forum€State,Ïadvertising€in€the€forum€State,€establishing€channels€for€providingÏregular€advice€to€customers€in€the€forum€State,€or€marketing€theÏproduct€through€a€distributor€who€has€agreed€to€serve€as€the€salesÏagent€in€the€forum€State.€€But€a€defendant's€awareness€that€theÏstream€of€commerce€may€or€will€sweep€the€product€into€the€forumÏState€does€not€convert€the€mere€act€of€placing€the€product€into€theÏstream€into€an€act€purposefully€directed€toward€the€forum€State.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.€at€112.€€These€justices€concluded€that€no€evidence€had€been€presented€establishing€that€òòò òAsahióóó óÏhad€purposefully€availed€itself€of€the€forum€State's€market:€€òòò òAsahióóó ó€did€no€business€in€the€forumÍState,€had€no€office,€agents,€employees€or€property€in€the€state,€did€no€advertising€or€otherwiseÏsolicit€business€in€the€state;€did€not€create,€control€or€employ€the€distribution€system€that€broughtÏits€product€into€the€forum€State's€market;€and€finally,€there€was€no€evidence€that€òòò òAsahióóó ó€designedÏits€product€in€anticipation€of€sales€in€California.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€112„13.€€Four€other€justices€disagreed€andÏfound€that€any€"additional€conduct"€on€behalf€of€the€defendant€was€not€warranted;€hence,€theÏdefendant's€placement€of€its€product€into€the€stream€of€commerce€with€an€awareness€that€the€finalÏproduct€would€be€marketed€in€the€forum€State€was€sufficient€to€constitute€an€act€purposefullyÏdirected€toward€the€forum€State.× ƒ& ××  ×€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€116„17.€€ÌÌà àThe€court€in€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó,€speaking€through€Judge€Koch,€interpreted€òòò òAsahióóó ó€toÏconclude:€€"[e]ven€though€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€could€not€agree€on€the€properÏapplication€of€the€stream€of€commerce€rationale,€a€majority€of€the€Court€agreed€upon€a€decisionÏbased€upon€a€more€traditional€minimum€contacts€analysis."€€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€at€575.€€InÏòòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó,€the€plaintiffs'€retail€stores€were€allegedly€damaged€when€a€fire€sprinkler€head€burst.€ÏSuit€was€filed€against€various€defendants€including€the€Massachusetts€supplier€of€the€sprinklerÏheads,€Day„Impex,€the€British€manufacturer€of€a€component€part€of€the€sprinkler€head€and€itsÏexclusive€United€States€distributor,€Sprinkler€Bulb,€a€Pennsylvania€corporation.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€574.€€BothÏSprinkler€Bulb€and€Day„Impex€moved€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction.€€In€reversing€theÏtrial€court's€denial€of€such€motions,€the€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó€court€expressly€rejected€the€"opportunity"€toÏdepart€from€the€traditional€minimum€contacts€analysis€and€apply€"some€version€of€the€'stream€ofÏcommerce'€analysis€discussed€but€not€adopted€in€[òòò òAsahióóó ó]."€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€The€court€found€the€caseÏdecidable€under€the€minimum€contacts€test€traditionally€applied€in€Tennessee.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àòòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó€rejected€the€argument€that€the€agreement€executed€between€Day„Impex€and€Sprinkler€Bulb,€granting€the€latter€the€exclusive€right€to€market€the€former's€product€inÍthe€United€States,€constituted€sufficient€minimum€contacts€with€Tennessee.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€575.€€InÏreaching€its€decision,€the€court€noted€that€these€defendants€had€not€sold€the€product€to€anyone€inÏTennessee;€had€not€€advertised,€solicited€orders,€or€maintained€an€office€or€employees€inÏTennessee;€and€employees€of€the€respective€parties€had€never€traveled€to€Tennessee€to€solicitÏbusiness,€nor€had€their€been€any€physical€contact€with€the€state.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€at€576.€€Furthermore,€noÏevidence€was€presented€that€either€party€controlled€the€marketing€activities€of€the€MassachusettsÏsupplier€of€the€sprinkler€head€or€knew€the€identity€of€its€customers.€€òòò òIdóóó ó.€€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó,€therefore,Ïconcluded:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àUnder€these€circumstances,€Day„Impex's€distributionÏagreement€with€Sprinkler€Bulb€is€not€the€type€of€agreementÏcontemplated€by€the€òòò òAsahióóó ó€court€as€providing€a€basis€for€exercisingÏpersonal€jurisdiction.€€While€it€gives€Sprinkler€Bulb€the€right€toÏmarket€glass€bulbs€throughout€the€United€States,€it€does€not€mentionÏTennessee€specifically.€€In€the€absence€of€any€other€conduct€by€Day„Impex€or€Sprinkler€Bulb€directed€toward€Tennessee,€the€nationwideÏdistribution€agreement€is€not€evidence€of€a€specific€intent€or€purposeÏto€serve€the€Tennessee€market.ÌÌÌÌÓÓòòò òIdóóó ó.ÌÌà àWe€find€the€foregoing€decisions€controlling€of€the€instant€situation.€€The€variousÏappellees€have€not€persuaded€us€that€òòò òDavis€Kiddóóó ó€is€distinguishable€because€it€is€a€"componentÏpart€case"€or€because€both€the€manufacturer€and€distributor€had€never€sold€to€any€TennesseeÏbusiness.€€A€thorough€reading€of€the€decision€leaves€this€Court€to€conclude€that€ò òòòDavis€Kiddóóó ó€didÏnot€place€particular€emphasis€on€the€fact€that€neither€party€had€sold€parts€in€Tennessee.€€SuchÏfinding€was€necessary€only€in€the€sense€that€the€court€saw€fit€to€dismiss€both€parties'€motions€forÏdismissal.ÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€facts€herein€detailed€have€gone€unchallenged€by€the€variousÏAppellees.€€Thus,€we€have€before€us€a€Korean€corporation€that€does€no€business€in€the€State€ofÍTennessee,€does€not€advertise€or€solicit€orders€in€the€state,€maintains€no€offices€or€employeesÏwithin€the€state,€its€employees€have€never€traveled€to€the€state€and€it€has€no€physical€contacts€withÏthe€forum.€€In€addition,€there€is€no€evidence€that€HJC€controlled€the€marketing€activities€of€itsÏdistributors€or€was€even€aware€that€its€product€would€ultimately€be€sold€in€Tennessee.€€€There€is€noÏevidence€that€the€distributorship€agreement€between€HJC€and€Sullivan€Brothers€specificallyÏmentions€Tennessee.€Although€the€FG„2€helmet€was€specifically€designed€for€the€AmericanÏmarket,€there€is€no€indication€that€it€was€designed€for€particular€distribution€in€the€forum€state.€ÌÌà àTennessee€undoubtedly€has€an€interest€in€providing€a€convenient€forum€for€itsÏresidents.€€òòò òSee€Davis€Kiddóóó ó,€832€S.W.2d€at€576.€€We€find€this€interest€outweighed€by€theÏburdensome€task€placed€upon€HJC€to€defend€itself€in€a€foreign€arena.€€Moreover,€Mullins€mayÏproceed€with€her€suit€as€against€Harley„Davidson€and€Sullivan€Brothers€as€the€trial€court€obviouslyÏhas€jurisdiction€over€these€defendants.€€Harley„Davidson,€likewise,€may€continue€its€suit€forÏindemnity€and€contribution€as€to€Sullivan€Brothers.€€While€we€can€appreciate€the€Appellees'Ïargument€that€a€decision€such€as€ours€will€allow€HJC€to€disclaim€total€responsibility€for€itsÏproduct,€we€do€not€agree.€€HJC€will€be€deterred€from€manufacturing€and€importing€defective€orÏunsafe€products€into€the€United€States€so€long€as€those€who€directly€purchase€and€sell€its€productÏinto€the€forum€state€are€subject€to€application€of€that€state's€tort€law.€òòò ò€See€Asahióóó ó,€480€U.S.€atÏ115.ÌÌà àIn€view€of€our€decision,€it€is€unnecessary€to€address€the€remaining€issues.€€TheÏorder€denying€HJC's€motions€to€dismiss€is€hereby€reversed€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€ÌÌÌÌfurther€proceedings€herewith€consistent.€€Costs€are€taxed€equally€between€Diane€Mullins€andÍHarley„Davidson€Yamaha€BMW€of€Memphis,€Inc.,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ` Ü` È“XÓÓÓà à________________________________Ìà àFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€(Concurs)ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌHIGHERS,€J.€(Concurs)Ì